John Edwards: Winning the Issues Debate

[JohnLocke]

John Edwards: Winning the Issues Debate

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, John Edwards is the only candidate who has consistently led the field when it comes to the most pressing issues facing Americans. Edwards was the first candidate to introduce a detailed plan to provide universal health care to every man, woman and child in America; he was the first presidential candidate to release a detailed plan to combat global warming; and he was the first candidate to release a detailed plan to combat global poverty.

Edwards Is Leading The Presidential Field On Issues
Heilemann: Edwards' Campaign Has Been "Most Substantive." In April 2007, John Heilemann wrote in New York Magazine of Edwards, "his campaign has not only been the most substantive of the lot (see his proposal for universal health care) but also the most strategic and focused."

Akron Beacon Journal: "John Edwards Actually Has Elevated The Debate." In a March 2007 editorial entitled, "John Edwards actually has elevated the debate," the Akron Beacon Journal praised Edwards' willingness to propose specific proposals to tackle issues, even though voters may disagree with him. "He isn't simply the guy with the slick stump speech, obsessed with the flip of his hair ... He has ideas to contribute, and thus a good reason to stay in the race.

Mario Cuomo: "Edwards Comes Closest To Actually Spelling Out His Positions" On Tough Issues. In April 2007, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo told New York's WNBC "that Edwards comes closest to actually spelling out his positions" on tough issues in the campaign.

Bill Bradley: Praised Edwards' Willing To Be Specific On Issues. In an April 2007 interview with the Austin-American Statesman, former US Senator and presidential candidate Bill Bradley was asked if any of the candidates running for president were running the kind of campaign he wanted to see in 2008. "I think John Edwards is closest in terms of being specific with people about what he would do," Bradley said. "I think he's been very specific on health care, very specific on energy and on poverty."

Praise For Edwards' Health Care Plan

Krugman: "Edwards Gets It Right" On Health Care. In a February 2007 column titled "Edwards Gets It Right," Paul Krugman wrote that "John Edwards has just set a fine example" for candidates who need to "provide enough specifics to show both that they understand the issues, and that they're willing to face up to hard choices when necessary."

Kennedy: Called Edwards' Plan "A Serious And Thoughtful Proposal." In February 2007, Massachusetts Senator and health care champion Edwards Kennedy praised Edwards' universal health care plan. "John Edwards has made a serious and thoughtful proposal to address the growing health care crisis," Kennedy said. "His innovative plan offers practical steps to lower the high cost of health care, improve the quality of care and provide coverage for all Americans. I've been encouraged by the fresh ideas coming from all corners of this debate to solve the health care crisis. I'm very hopeful we'll make progress in providing Americans with the care they need."

Krugman: Edwards Offered "Specifics" On Health Care When Opponents Only Had "Vague Generalities" And Obama Had "No Real Substance." In February 2007 a column titled "Substance Over Image," Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, "All the leading Democratic candidates say they're for universal care, but only John Edwards has come out with a specific proposal. The others have offered only vague generalities -- wonderfully uplifting generalities, in Mr. Obama's case -- with no real substance."

Tumulty: Universal Health are Is More Than A Slogan In Edwards' Case. In a March 2007 column following the SEIU/CAP health care form in Nevada, TIME's Karen Tumulty, who moderated the forum, wrote that "while health care for all is now a popular slogan, Edwards is the only candidate offering a plan that would actually get to universal coverage."

Praise For Edwards' Plan To Combat Global Warming
Friedman: Edwards Is The "Most Forward-Leaning" Candidate On The Environment. In an April 2007 interview on CNN, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman said in response to a question from Wolf Blitzer on whether any of the candidates shared his vision for the environment, "I will say this. John Edwards in the past few weeks has come out with a series of proposals which I am now studying that strike me as probably the most forward-leaning of all the candidates so far."

LCV: Edwards Led The Way Among Presidential Contenders On Global Warming. In March 2007, the League of Conservation Voters praised Edwards' plan to combat global warming. In a statement, LCV President Gene Karpinski said, "The League of Conservation Voters applauds Sen. John Edwards for taking the lead in announcing aggressive plans to combat global warming ... Senator Edwards' plan demonstrates that he understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it ... Senator Edwards has outlined the most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date. We look forward to other 2008 presidential candidates outlining their plans to address this pressing issue."

Sierra Club Executive Director: Edwards Plan Is "The Kind Of Dialogue We Were Hoping For From The 2008 Presidential Election." In March 2007, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope praised Edwards' plan to combat global warming. He said. Edwards "issued a visionary set of energy proposals at a speech at the Biomass Energy Conversion Center in Nevada, Iowa ... This is the kind of dialogue we were hoping for from the 2008 Presidential election -- one that, whatever it yields, will give us a president whose name is not Bush, and almost certainly one who will have had to seriously debate his approach to global warming and energy issues. It's great to see someone lead the way, and now the ball is the courts of the Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, Obama, Richardson and Romney campaigns. Come on in folks - the water is fine!"

Praise for Edwards' Plan To Combat Global Poverty
Kristof: Edwards Followed Specific Health Care Plan With "Good And Specific Ideas" On Combating Poverty. In a March 2007 blog post, New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wrote, "More than any of the presidential candidates, John Edwards has come up with a specific and plausible plan that provides for health care coverage for all Americans. And he followed that up yesterday with an excellent speech on poverty at home and abroad, with some good and specific ideas ... Let's hope the campaign over the next 18 months produces more specific ideas like these and raises the visibility of poverty and health care generally."

Errol Louis: Edwards Leading All Opponents By Offering "One Sound, Compassionate Plan After Another" To Fight Poverty. In March 2007, Errol Louis wrote in the New York Daily News that "Edwards has already done America a great service by running for President and putting the issue of poverty where it belongs: front and center." Louis added that Edwards "has backed up that passion with one sound, compassionate plan after another to extend the hand of government to Americans in dire economic straits." Louis wrote, "Edwards is doing what every Democratic presidential candidate ought to be doing - talking about ways to eliminate desperate poverty from our midst once and for all." Noting that "For every news story about issues in the presidential campaign, there seem to be 10 about trivial matters like which candidate called his rival a liar," Louis praised Edwards, writing, "Edwards is aiming for something higher and grander, and asking us to do the same. Exactly what a man running for President ought to do."

Praise For Edwards' Candor And Honesty On The Budget
Krugman: Edwards Was Specific About Deficits While Opponents Failed To Make Their Stance Known. In February 2007, Paul Krugman wrote about "serious debate within the Democratic Party between deficit hawks, who point out how well the economy did in the Clinton years, and those who, having watched Republicans squander Bill Clinton's hard-won surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and a feckless war, would give other things -- such as universal health care -- higher priority than deficit reduction," and commented that "Edwards has come down on the anti-hawk side. But which side are Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on? I have no idea."

Dionne: Edwards Honest About Budgeting Realities. In January 2007, E. J. Dionne wrote, "Edwards's ideas on the budget have the additional virtue of reminding us that the argument over arriving at a balanced budget by 2012 is largely phony. The real issue, given the burgeoning costs of health care and the retirement of the baby boomers, is how to put policies in place now that achieve sustainable fiscal balance... over the next 30 years." Dionne added, "Edwards, at least, is willing to say which taxes he would raise to keep the deficit from going through the roof... Edwards deserves points for honesty and for stating the politically difficult truth that both fiscal and social balance demand a comprehensive health-care fix."

[mnhtnbb]

1. I like Edwards this time. I hope America warms up to him, in spite

of the media's attempt to ram Hillary or Obama down our throats.

[MGKrebs]

12. Well, it is possible that some do run a more effective campaign than others.

[Labors of Hercules]

33. I like that he's staying deep.

staying with the issues and not shallow posturing. Seems to me as people begin to wake up and pay more attention, they'll get frustrated at all the shallow junk and start to hunger for substance, and that's where they'll connect with John.

He's definately my #1 pick if Gore doesn't jump in for that very reason.

[JohnLocke]

2. Kick (nt).

[illinoisprogressive]

3. I need something else to convince me to like him. hear me out.

I would love the chance to discuss what troubles me about Edwards without his fans jumping down my throat for expressing them.
I am bothered by the blogs acting the way the establishment does with Hillary. the feeling of having him shoved at me.
Just as the msm does with Hillary. this makes me more resistant.
I am bothered by the sense of aloofness and what I see as snobishness. I feel he feels he is better than anyone else. More than confident. an arrogance. It is my reading and not critizing.
I feel suspicious of him. His sudden change from right of center to mr. Populist in a finger snap.
I feel this intuitive feeling of suspicion.
His programs remind me alot of the stuff that came out in the 70s only reworded. Stuff that just was not workable and possible. almost utopian. Not realistic.
His supporters are aggresive and mean if you question things. You cannot have an intellegent discussion for fear of them attacking you personally. Not help you understand. They hate you for not seeing his fabulousness.
I would like to give him a chance and to like the man and have my uneasiness put to rest but, it is so hard when you want to understand and bring up why you don't and get slammed for it.
So, take this in the spirit in which I write this. Not as someone being mean but, someone who says, convince me why I should seriously concider him for my second choice and cheer for him.
I cannot be disabused of my suppport for obama for number 1 choice but, would love to be convinced why he should come in second.

[vanboggie]

4. Good post

I understand what you're saying about having people jump down your throat for having a different opinion on a candidate. That's going around on DU a lot lately. I don't know that I can convince you. What I think is interesting is that I feel the same about Obama as you do about Edwards. I'm trusting my instincts, which are usually spot on, and I have a gut feeling that Edwards is sincere in intent. I want to like Obama, but there's something that makes me distrustful of him for many of the same personal traits you see in Edwards. Isn't it strange how our perspectives on these two candidates are in total opposition?

Can you put the overly zealous Edwards supporters out of your mind when you consider Edwards? Perhaps the bad vibe you are getting from them is coloring your view of Edwards himself?

Besides my gut instinct about the man's character being up to the task, this election is going to make or break this country and I think Edwards has a shot at bringing in more votes from the South. I also think he will put up a fight if/when Rove & Co. steals it again. He tried unsuccessfully to persuade Kerry not to concede.

I don't know how to convince you, I.P., but please don't let the attacking supporters put you off on the candidate. I'd like to see the attacks stop no matter which candidate they support. It's like writing ads for the Rove-ite crew to use against us later in the campaign.

[Punkingal]

6. I found your post interesting.

I am an Edwards supporter, because I think he is NOT snobbish or aloof. I see him as a genuine, someone who really wants to change things for all of us. I see him as feeling fortunate that he was able to rise above his youthful poverty to be a success, and wanting to make it easier for others to do the same things. When he says he hasn't forgotten where he came from, I believe him. He has a wonderful wife and family, and when I have seen them with their children, they appear to me just like any American family.

Having listened to your opinions about Edwards, I would like to tell you that I see Obama in some of the ways that you have described Edwards. I see him as snobbish and aloof, and caught up in being Barack Obama. He has great rhetoric, but where is his vision? I have read some of his positions, and they seem hollow to me. I see him as concerned with saying the right things, and less with doing the right things.

[Catchawave]

7. Perhaps you're putting Edwards supporters on the defense

too much? I've seen some of your posts, and they're usually a repetition of RW talking points, so that may push some over the edge?

It's great you support Obama, teach us more about him with positive threads about the issues!

DU is a tough gig when pushing negativity. Try some sugar :hi:

[GreenArrow]

8. I completely understand your misgivings

I do not trust this fellow one little bit, not since I first became aware of him when he was touted as a potential running mate for Gore. He comes across as too glib, too slick, too changeable, opportunistic and basically completely disingenuous. What you describe as arrogant, I see as smug sanctimony. He is expert at telling people what they want to hear, in the way they wish to hear it. He made his fortune persuading people, through pushing the right emotional buttons.

Right now, he is focusing on the "netroots" and playing to what he perceives as its sensibilities, (which I believe is similar to what you are saying about the blogs pushing him), and I further believe that he will find that the power of the netroots doesn't run quite as deep as he believes it does. Or, more likely, he understands that the so-called netroots have already been co-opted -- mainstreamized, as it were -- molded into something easily manipulable, and he is counting on a wave of manufactured pre-fab populism carrying him to victory as a sleeper candidate for the status quo. I don't see him as appreciably different from either Obabma or Hillary, and frankly, I'd vote for either of them before him, even though his rhetoric is preferable. There is little in his record to suggest that his rhetoric is anything more than facile, cynical opportunism. I don't especially trust Obama either, or Hillary at all, but there is far less pretense in the way they present themselves.

[venable]

14. it's one thing to genuinely ask why one should support him

and quite another to just slam the guy every time he's mentioned, which you do. and if you wonder why edwards' supporter tire of this, and become thin-skinned, here are a few lines from this post of yours, which is extraordinarily mild by current anti-Edwards standards:

Remember this is the guy that the OP noted was widely acknowledged as the most seriously substantive of all the candidates. So, about this guy you say not a single word about his policies or current positions, instead you say:



-I do not trust this fellow one little bit,

-too glib, too slick, too changeable, opportunistic and basically completely disingenuous.

- smug sanctimony.

- He is expert at telling people what they want to hear

- he is counting on a wave of manufactured pre-fab populist

- a sleeper candidate for the status quo.

- facile, cynical opportunism.



So, let me summarize: Bradley, Cuomo, and many impressive sources in the OP talk about how substantive he is, and you post the above, in response. I am one Edwards supporter who is just flat out tired of this. Challenge what he says, and please move beyond the ad hominem attacks.

The reason that this annoys so much is that it happens all the time - he voices wonderfully progressive ideas and a handful of people come on as say "who cares, he's a slimeball'.

[GreenArrow]

24. he can voice anything he wants

and I don't have to believe a word of it, particularly when his record doesn't match his rhetoric. You're tired of "ad hominems" against John Edwards; I'm tired of the unwarranted fawning adulation of the guy. I don't like the guy, I don't trust the guy, I don't think he's genuine, and despite the number of times I'm told just how doggone swell he is, he's done little to prove otherwise. It could be worse, he really could be genuine, in which case he's provincial minded and something of a sanctimonious prig. Those are my opinions, and I'm sticking to them until the guy gives me reason to reconsider them. In the case of John Edwards, it's much less about his "wonderful progressive opinions" than it is about making John Edwards look good and feeding his ego.

And yes, I did happen to notice that the OP noted that Edwards was considered by some as having the most substantive plans-- three freaking months into the race -- and I might add that these views of Edwards as the most substantive are also matters of opinion, which are likely to change as the election goes on and the other candidates flesh out their own plans. I've had occasional posts on Edwards' positions; I've even on occasion given him credit for things he has done well; for instance, I think he is very adept at making use of the internet, and his brush off of Fox news was very clever (even though Obama had already been doing so). But even that last example helps to illustrate where Edwards falls short; since Fox is so overtly right-wing, it's easy to overlook that it is also overtly CORPORATE, and that same overt corporate focus (and ownership) of the media is the real issue, one which niether Edwards nor any of the other candidates dare touch. This was illustrated in last night's debate, the "bias" of which engendered much discussion on here. Consider this, from the Nation:

>>"One of the striking things you notice, covering a debate like this, is the vast gulf between what the reporters and pundits see and what the people see. I spent most of the debate in the stifling habitat of a media room with the likes of CNN's Jeff Greenberg and Candy Crowley. As the first big question about Iraq was lobbed at the Big Three--Clinton, Obama and Edwards--the mediocracy collectively pounded away at their laptops, taking down every word in a veritable symphony of typing. When the same question then went to Kucinich, the man who intrepidly preached against the war in 2004 when the others would not, all hands rested. All typing ceased. The music stopped. Attention wandered. Who cares that this man was--and is--dead-right on the issue, and that he says it stronger, and in a way far more in tune with the bulk of the people, than any of the others? He is not "viable." He is not big money. He is not worth transcribing."<<

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070514/moser

Honestly, why would the "media" not to attend to Kucinich's comments? Or Gravel's? Why are the candidates, the voices, the pundits who were so wrong on Iraq still getting free hand with their still wrong opinions while those who were right were shut out and continue to be shut out? Quick answer: those in the media serve for the most part, not as journalists, but as entertainers and as outright propagandists.

So while Edwards can attack the convenient target in Fox, hated by all on the left, most particularly, those with compulsive interest in partisan politics, Web-style, he doesn't touch on the real issue, which is control of the media by a few mega corporations who basically control the message and content. His interest is rather in manipulating potential voters. Kucinich, while roundly criticized on DU, was right in saying that Fox is a legitimate media outlet; its overt bias may be anathema to those on the left, but its motivating bias is control of information, power, and profit, as is the case with all the other major media outlets, whether print, TV, web etc., and in this it is in concert with CNN, MSNBC, etc. (Kucinich was also wrong, because any media so constructed is scarcely legitimate in any sense of having journalistic integrity, nor does it constitute in any way a free press).

Getting back to Edwards' candidacy, I don't believe he is offering anything that is at all upsetting to the status quo, to the captains of industry, commerce, and media (as Mike Gravel put it in last night's debate "the military industrial complex not only controls our government
lock, stock, and barrel, but they CONTROL OUR CULTURE") and if he were, he would find himself in the same position as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel (who interestingly, each had 6 minutes to speak at the Debate, while the rest of the candidates averaged between 9 and 12) Edwards gets the time because he's part of the club, he's no threat, no matter how many fuzzy bunny promises he makes.

[venable]

35. we agree on Kucinich

and his message and that he is unjustifiably ignored.

I'll leave it at that, and hope that ad hominem attacks, on everybody, stop, in the interest of dialogue.

[jcrew2001]

38. the Kooch

is a great nickname.

[Catchawave]

19. So, how did Lieberman come across as a running mate?

Oh wait.....

Kerry and Edwards were on Al's shortlist in 2000, could have made a difference?

[GreenArrow]

27. Lieberman was preferable to Edwards

at least in terms of a running mate. I'm not sure what Edwards could have brought to that race other than his looks. What you see is what you get with ol' Joementum, who probably brought a considerable amount of money into the race. Kerry as veep? I don't think that would have played well. But it's done, and we'll never know.

[jcrew2001]

23. Too slick, willowy on issue - same was said about Bill Clinton

or do you have a problem with Bill Clinton as well? Have you considered that Edwards has actually developed detailed policies. Or are you just choosing a candidate based on your 'gut' and choosing Obama cuz he gives a nice speech but can't come up with specifics.

If your choice is Clark - Clark had no domestic policies in 2004 and agreed with whatever activists wanted him to say, and I'm still not sure what Clark's domestic policies are. Gore never mentioned the environment in 2000 and (everyone voted Nadar), and he's also been labeled as a panderer.

[GreenArrow]

29. no, I didn't and don't like Clinton very much

and that he looked like and came across as a televangelist did play a role in that.

Of course, I've considered that Edwards has policy positions; I happen to think that most of them are at best luke-warm and gutless stop-gap measures, such as his health care plan, which is essentially a suck up to the insurance companies while throwing a sop to those of us who can barely afford or can't afford health insurance at all. For someone who said recently said something like "Americans are tired of incremental plans" or some such thing, his plans don't come across to me as especially bold. I also think that once the campaign gets increasingly under way, and the other candidates start offering their own plans, there will be very little practical difference between them.

Not a Clarkie, though I do believe a) he would have made a better running mate for Kerry than Edwards b)and would be a more competent executive than most of the candidates now running. I don't trust him entirely, either, partly because of his military background, but that could actually be beneficial. His views on Iran are more realistic than those of the rest of the so-called "first tier" candidates. Perhaps a Clark supporter can come along and enlighten you as to his domestic policies, but based on what I know of them, he's again arguably more liberal than those running. Since he hasn't declared, I'm not focusing too much on him.

I would consider voting for Obama, but am not a supporter at this time.

[jcrew2001]

32. Hillary not fake?

"I don't see him as appreciably different from either Obabma or Hillary, and frankly, I'd vote for either of them before him, even though his rhetoric is preferable. There is little in his record to suggest that his rhetoric is anything more than facile, cynical opportunism. I don't especially trust Obama either, or Hillary at all, but there is far less pretense in the way they present themselves."

---You are saying that Hillary does not pander or come off as FAKE????!!!
Are you on planet Earth?

All politicians have to represent the ideals and goals of their constituents, and show leadership in enabling those goals to come to fruition. Edwards is wealthy and does not need a political career, he's running for president because he honestly believes that a Progressive agenda is needed for America.

I believe that Hillary is running mostly because of Ego. I think Obama is running on Image, he's a neophyte that will stumble greatly if elected.

Have you heard Hillary's southern accent? She should stick with the chicago accent - at least pretend she remembers where she came from.

[GreenArrow]

47. of course, Hillary's fake

I think I more or less said so. But to reiterate, she is more accepting of her role as politician, as is Obama; they make less pretense about it. They know they are part of the ruling class, just as we know it. Edwards, IMO, pretends he isn't, though if he should get elected, he will prove that he is, and that is going to break quite a few hearts, and engender disapointments that would not sting so deeply if they came from one from whom they were more expected; say Hillary, or God forbid, Biden (I'd vote for Edwards before him.) His position as a non-elected offical allows him a lot of leeway in the kind of rhetoric he is able to use, rhetoric he would not be using if he were currently in office, and rhetoric which he will not be able to live up to should he be elected.

I'd have to disagree with you on Edwards' motivation. His run is a product of sheer ego. Like John McCain, he believes it would look great on his resume. A platitudinous "Progressivism" is simply the vehicle which he expects to carry him to victory; different times might call for a different vehicle. His performance during the run-up to IWR comes to mind as an example. Given his co-sponsorship of, op-ed authorship, and red meat floor speech in favor of IWR, lengths to which Hillary did not even come close, I'd have to support her over him in an election, at least one where a gun was pointed at my head. As it is, I'm not inclined to vote for either one of them.

As for Hillary's "southern" accent, yeah, she is a good old Chicago girl, but she did live in Arkansas for twenty years. I reckon she picked up a few things during that time, and I 'spect her time in New Yawk will rub off on her speaking style as well.

[DemDogs]

46. First ... and second

First, GreenArrow is not a Clark supporter? Did someone steal your name?

Second, Edwards policy positions are not "luke-warm and gutless stop-gap measures." You destroy any notion that you might be objective when you say he is sucking up to medical insurance companies. This is JOHN EDWARDS, you know, who spent 20 years suing medical insurance companies, who co-authored the Patient's Bill of Rights to stick it to abusive insurance companies. He allows any American to chose Medicaid as their insurance policy -- which makes single payor a consumer choice and will drive those insurance companies nuts. As for "throwing a sop to those of us who can barely afford or can't afford health insurance at all" perhaps when you "considered" Edwards health care plan, you missed that your premiums would be subsidized in whole or in part for incomes up to $100,000 a year. Doesn't sound like a sop to me. The whole plan is on his website. If you think his plan was luke-warm, you might be thinking of Obama's version of Kerry's 2003 health care plan -- but without the cost. As for Edwards saying "Americans are tired of incremental plans" you might consider his climate change proposal as compared to others. BHO and HRC want a 60% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Edwards says we can do 80% with the right leadership. Edwards says to start withdrawing troops today; BHO and HRC won't even say they will send the a new bill with same funding+timetable back to the president if he vetoes the one that was just passed. He has again the only rural agenda. He has the only poverty agenda, which is really transformational. His housing policy is new and bold.

As for the other candidates not yet offering plans, I want to know why they want to be president. Is it about them or about what they can do? If is about what they can do, why the heck don't they know already what they want to do?

[GreenArrow]

48. somebody steal my name?

Nope. So far as I know, I am the one and only GreenArrow on here, and other than feeling that he was the best choice for Kerry's running mate, I've never been a Clark supporter.

As for the rest, the lack of objectivity you accuse me of runs both ways. Your post reads like an Edwards campaign spot.

[DemDogs]

39. Regular guy

Can't help you with intuition (also can't help you with why you like Obama, who hasn't given me a single reason to give him a second look), but I think I can with the specific problems you mention about Edwards.

Edwards could not be further from arrogant. There was piece in Salon in the last days about his shopping with his children in the grocery store, about his speaking to everyone, about his putting his cart up (it may sound little but I am thinking that arrogant men don't return their shopping carts -- call that my intuition). I think he probably thinks he has policies and specifics and that his campaign is better than the others because of that (and I happen to agree), but I don't think that he thinks HE is better. He used to tell the story about his father being able to tell in a minute whether someone respected him, and he learned from his father to treat everyone with respect not because it is polite but because no one is any better than anyone else. I was at an event where there were several candidates and Edwards was the only one who shook the hands of the staff who were clearing the tables.

As for being suspicious because of his populism, I think you fell for the mainstream description of him. Think about this: he comes from a family of textile workers who were held down and away from unions by companies that owned the towns and everyone in them. He worked as a trial lawyer suing mostly big corporations and insurance companies who would not admit to their responsibility to the little guy. He (and maybe Kucinich) is the most authentic populist of all. Not in a finger snap but in fifty-something years.

What programs remind you of 70s policy? His anti-poverty plans (which seems like the only thing you could be talking about) are nothing like 60s anti-poverty plans. Not reworded, not utopian. His plans are really thoughtful. Don't read the Heritage Fdn on what he has to say. Read his new collection of essays on poverty. Or at least his website.

This is not a personal attack. I hope it has been helpful. If there are supporters who are rude to you, don't blame that on Edwards. If Edwards is rude to you, then blame him.

[w4rma]

42. Wow, I didn't know most of that about Edwards. Thank you. (nt)

[Forkboy]

5. I thought he did well last night.

I did cringe a bit when he named Elizabeth as his second inspiration though.She should have made him sleep on the sofa after that. :)

[Clarkie1]

9. Political races are never about plans and policy papers.

They are about biographies, values, character, integrity, and vision. Policy papers won't help Edwards, there is plenty of time for the details. They aren't really needed now.

[w4rma]

10. Policies are what bring the activists. The activists are what bring the supporters.

The supporters bring the votes. Edwards is running a marathon and has a steady winning pace. He has the biography, values, character, integrity and vision that Americans want in a role model and a President.

[Clarkie1]

15. I understand the theory....

"Policies are what bring on the activists. The activists are what bring the supporters."

I just don't believe it. Especially not now.

And I'm going to be frank with you, as much as you may not like it. That $400 destroyed all the poetry of the Edwards "Two America's" poem. He'll need to find another poem if he expects to have a chance, because there's no way in this America he's going to win with policy papers and a $400 haircut.

[w4rma]

17. You're not being "frank". You're trying to smear all of Obama's main competitors.

You never talk about issues, just like your candidate doesn't. What is he hiding? Is he worried his inexperience will show? Or that progressives will find his policies to right-wing?

He'll have to detail his issues in the general. Obama's supporters are doing the Democratic Party a huge disservice by not telling Obama that they want to debate them right now before he announces his policies in the general and loses the general to the Republicans in a fantastic Dukakis-like showing because we don't find out until then that his policies are poorly written.

[venable]

20. frank = 'this is my opinion'

it means nothing more than that

here's my 'frank' = Edwards policies and commitment to his causes mean more to voters than a goofball mistake on a booking and payment of a haircut.

thankfully, yes, voters are more sophisticated than that.

[GreenArrow]

30. "voters are more sophisticated than that"

Do you really think so? I don't.

[venable]

36. I hope they are

that's all.

And I'd like our electoral politics to proceed as if they are.

Maybe that's too idealistic, but I prefer it to the alternative = cynicism and manipulation.

[DemDogs]

40. Are you Chris Lehane?

Because Chris Lehane loves the haircut story. If you are not, I hope you like Lehane serving you breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

[bvar22]

11. Maybe its just me, but...

I WANT the details. I want the plans, positions, and policies.
I am not interested in The Hype, and discount candidates who do not provide the details alongside the lofty rhetoric in their sales packages. If they tell me they are going to bring the USA to point B, I want the roadmap.

Maybe its just me.

[Clarkie1]

13. It's still, many, many months from the first caucus.

There will be time.

"We campaign in poetry, but we govern in prose" - Mario Cuomo

[Catchawave]

21. Not that many months with the stakes so high

to take back our country.

:patriot:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Here is what Cuomo himself had to say about Edwards being more specific than the rest

==Cuomo Impressed with Edwards
In an interview on WNBC-TV, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, "who famously tortured political reporters who covered his ponderings of whether or not to run for president in the past," said that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama "are trying to avoid the issues by raising big money," and that John Edwards "comes closest to actually spelling out his positions."

Said Cuomo: "Let's face it, the candidates are all ducking the really hard issues, how do you pay for this? How exactly do you get out of Iraq? What are you doing in Afghanistan?"==

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/04/17/cuomo_impressed_with_edwards.html

Cuomo apparently cares about the prose as well. ;)

[JohnLocke]

16. "Details aren't really needed now"

I think they're needed more now than ever!

[venable]

18. what if your plans and policies reflect who you are?

I would hope that the voters are sophisticated enough to build the man out of the plan, rather than construct a 'character' that they like, policies and details be damned.

[mnhtnbb]

22. That's called buying a pig in a poke. Don't hold me to details.

I'll get around to it. What if we don't like the details once the purchase has been made?

Uh-uh, not buying it. Not me. Been around long enough to know a sales pitch when I hear it.

[w4rma]

25. That sure explains why such a high rate of Obama's supporters are under 30 relative to the others.

They are too young to have the experience to tell the difference between a sales pitch and substance.

[Clarkie1]

26. It's not about detailed policy papers. It's about vision, values, integrity, and character.

And that's the way it should be. The American people want to know that a candidate is capable of stepping up to all the known and mostly unknown challenges a future President will face, and the GENERAL legislative and other GOALS they will work to achieve as President. It's humorous how so many Edwards supports seem to think that if Edwards becomes President all these circa April 2007 these detailed plans will somehow magically become the law of the land on January 20, 2009. It's the person that counts and what they believe in that counts. There will be time enough for the details of legislation while working with the future Congress (which will change any candidates "plan" anyway).

[jcrew2001]

31. But will Clark have any more success passing legislation

than Edwards? Afterall, Clark has zero political or legislative experience. Will Clark just become a figurehead on domestic policy?

[mnhtnbb]

34. Anyone else remember Bushie boy being sold to Americans that way?

Gonna' bring honesty and integrity back to the White House? How many times did he say 'trust me'?

The minute someone starts talking about honesty, integrity, character, is the minute my BS detector starts beeping. Those who really are honest, have integrity, and well-developed character know that they will be judged by their actions and not their talk.

[jcrew2001]

37. But Bush is an idiot and a republican

He never did anything with his life and was a complete failure.

[Colobo]

41. Thanks for underestimating us.

[w4rma]

43. It wasn't very long ago when I was under 30, also. I remember what it was like. (nt)

[Colobo]

44. So how old are Hillary supporters?

[w4rma]

45. Her supporters' age median is older. They tend to get their news from TV instead of the internet.

Unfortunately TV news isn't very reliable.

[saltpoint]

49. An impressive compilation, JohnLocke. Thank you for doing this

and putting it up there for us tonight.

Edwards is not only impressing many of those people -- and to their deep credit they are characteristically hard to please -- but he's erased any doubt that he is shallow on the issues.

I believe someone like Giuliani or Romney would wither and wilt against a very prepared and determined John Edwards. And McCain would have to be carried off the stage on a stretcher and given oxygen.

Of the dozen or so possible Democrats and the dozen and a half possible Republicans in the 2008 race, Edwards is a finalist, IMO.